I get the impression that some people looking at various other forms of treatment (especially looking at remedies developed in Western traditions prior to the late 19th/early 20th century, when science-based medicine actually started being relatively useful) don't always realize that there is a continuum of efficacy. Some of these remedies are somewhat effective--things like garlic or honey, for example, have some efficacy as topical treatments for minor infections. That is, they sometimes achieve better results than nothing, which is really all it takes for a remedy to start spreading in use. Keep in mind that until relatively recently, 'Medicine' was often spectacularly ineffective and people had good reason not to trust doctors. Applying a garlic poultice rather than being bled by someone who didn't believe in washing his hands seems like a good idea to me
( ... )
I wish the author would focus more on the actual problem we encounter in getting health care day-to-day. "Personal, cultural, and economic biases" are absolutely prevalant in health care as anywhere, and we could eliminate some of the shortcomings by correcting for these biases. Maybe what's going on with this author, or at least what irritates me when reading his postings, is the false-dichotomy he puts forth.
1000-year-old treatment: good 20th century treatment: bad "natural" remedies: good made-in-lab remedies: bad eastern medicine: good western: bad
I don't mean that all of his analysis is so simple, but that appears to be implied whenever I read his work.
Yeah, I find that a lot of people work under the assumption of this kind of dichotomy, and it's rather flawed either way. No good science-minded person should assume that a treatment is good or bad simply based on how old it is or where it comes from. We work with evidence and data! Also the groupings in this set-up make no objective sense. All 'old' or 'natural' or 'eastern' remedies are NOT the same. They come from a host of different healing systems, most of which were totally unrelated to one another. Imperial Chinese medical practices of the 1500s are NOT the same as rural British practices of the 1200s, and trying to put them in the same generic group makes no sense.
Incidentally, I saw a news brief on a review of studies on the efficacy of acupuncture--I haven't had the time to look at the study itself but the brief reports that acupuncture seems slightly more effective than both placebo and 'medicine' (would have to look at the actual report to know what medicines were used in the studies that were reviewed). Two
( ... )
Comments 5
Reply
1000-year-old treatment: good
20th century treatment: bad
"natural" remedies: good
made-in-lab remedies: bad
eastern medicine: good
western: bad
I don't mean that all of his analysis is so simple, but that appears to be implied whenever I read his work.
Reply
Incidentally, I saw a news brief on a review of studies on the efficacy of acupuncture--I haven't had the time to look at the study itself but the brief reports that acupuncture seems slightly more effective than both placebo and 'medicine' (would have to look at the actual report to know what medicines were used in the studies that were reviewed). Two ( ... )
Reply
I suspect you of outing this guy because of the crack about Ron.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment